Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ps418 · 08-22-2002, 05:48 PM

Here's a few interesting articles on the genetic evidence linking native americans. Of course, Mibby will not find it convincing, because much of the research was conducted by unreliable non-natives.

<a href="http://www.intas.be/catalog/961-1766.htm" target="_blank">Genetic history of native Siberians as recorded in their mitochondrial and nuclear DNA's </a>

And this very recent AJHG paper on the Siberian Affinities of Native American Y Chromosomes:

<a href="http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2002_v70_p192-206.pdf" target="_blank">The Dual Origin and Siberian Affinities of Native American Y Chromosomes. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 70:192-206, 2002</a> Warning: this is a PDF file.

Quote:

The Y chromosomes of 549 individuals from Siberia and the Americas were analyzed for 12 biallelic markers, which defined 15 haplogroups. The addition of four microsatellite markers increased the number of haplotypes to 111. The major Native American founding lineage, haplogroup M3, accounted for 66% of male Y chromosomes and was defined by the biallelic markers M89, M9, M45, and M3. The founder haplotype also harbored the microsatellite alleles DYS19 (10 repeats), DYS388 (11 repeats), DYS390 (11 repeats), and DYS391 (10 repeats). In Siberia, the M3 haplogroup was confined to the Chukotka peninsula, adjacent to Alaska.

Get our your map and find Chukotka. Pretty awesome coincidence, huh? I'm sure Mibby has a rational alternative explanation for these facts. He's just refusing to reveal what it is.

<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

Here's a discussion of Sinodonty, a suite of dental characteristics shared only between north Asians and Native Americans, and whose existence in Asia long predates its existence in North America.

<a href="http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/10_1Non-Metric.htm" target="_blank">II. SINODONTS AND AMERINDS: TRACING NATIVE AMERICAN ORIGINS </a>

Patrick

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]

Doubting Didymus · 08-22-2002, 06:53 PM

Can someone please tell me how this discussion relates to evolution or creation? I am sure it does, somewhere, but I can't see it immediately.

RBH · 08-22-2002, 07:09 PM

Patrick wrote,

Quote:

I'm sure Mibby has a rational alternative explanation for these facts. He's just refusing to reveal what it is.

Mibby does have an explanation, though I'd hesitate to describe it as "rational." It's betrayed by his use of pronouns, in particular his use of "we" when he writes

Quote:

Hey, we knew earth was round - and went around the sun - before you did. And we knew that hunting animals to extinction meant you wouldn't have any more to hunt before you did. And we knew the moon was an object while you thought it was a "light." And we knew that bathing was actually healthy while you thought it would let "evil spirits" in.

and his hysterical rejection of any account of migration to North America.

RBH
(edited for typo)

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: RBH ]

mibby529 · 08-23-2002, 05:48 PM

From Civilization.ca

Quote:

The Beringia concept, and its variations and derivations (Note 1) , are essential components of any archaeological discussion treating the origins of the first Aboriginal populations in the New World within a Pleistocene time frame.

In short allowing an assumption to pass because it's "essential" for archaeology, which BTW is mainly guesswork, like any history.

Quote:

It must be noted, however, that relatively little pertinent data have come out of these investigations, mainly because of the difficulties inherent in archaeological research in these regions.

"Dear Lord, the gods have been good to me. As an offering, I present these milk and cookies. If you wish me to eat them instead, please give me no sign whatsoever... thy bidding will be done."
-Homer Simpson

Do you REALLY expect me to believe in possibilism? They say there is little pertinent data, but then say the lack of data is evidence in favor of the Bering Strait.

Hmm...I wonder what junior college the author graduated from.

Now, from the NPS site (as if the government can be objective when dealing with Indians.)

Quote:

Ten thousand years ago, however, the Alaska mainland was, physically and ecologically, a part of Asia, from which it was severed by the rising seawater that formed the Bering Sea to the south and the Chukchi Sea to the north.

Oh, here we go: IMMEDIATELY assuming the land bridge is true.

Quote:

Thus, at the height of the Pleistocene, the Alaskan interior formed a relatively ice-free bowl, covered by "steppe tundra" vegetation (also called mammoth tundra), out of which a narrow, ice-free corridor led eastward and southward, between the Cordilleran and Laurentide ice sheets into the continental interior.

Tell me where that is on a modern map. If that's where I think it is, that area has frequent blizzards today. Imagine how it was in an Ice Age.

Quote:

Another possible ice-free zone that could have formed a migration route was down the coastal zones into the Pacific northwest.

Now this is possible, but unproven. Science doesn't rely on blind faith.

Quote:

The physiography of Alaska is dominated by mountains and rivers.

Exactly why no one could've crossed Alaska in an ice age.

Quote:

Dominating the north of Alaska is the Brooks Range, which runs generally east-west, into the Yukon Territory. There it swings southward - the Richardson, Pelly, and Selwyn Ranges - and can be seen as the northern end of the Rocky Mountains. Across the center of Alaska runs the Alaska Range, which is dominated by the Denali and Foraker massifs. Lying between the Brooks and Alaska Ranges are the Tanana-Yukon Uplands in the east, and in the farwest is the Seward Peninsula. Lowland areas of considerable extent occur on the north slope of Alaska and in the Yukon and Kuskokwim basins of the interior. Southeast Alaska contains the Wrangell Mountains. The Chugach Range runs from that range westward to Prince William Sound and the Kenai Peninsula. In Southwest Alaska, the Aleutian Range becomes the backbone of the Alaska Peninsula and continues as the Aleutian Islands, extending about 1300 miles into the Bering Sea.

And you expect ppl to settle here in an Ice Age? I have never heard anything so stupid in all my life.

Quote:

The landscape is dissected by these mountain ranges and river systems, which, when crosscut by the arctic and subarctic climate of the region, form innumerable microniches and habitation zones.

And we are to believe someone would leave these habitation zones for a mountain range.

Quote:

The descendants of the "First Alaskans" who created these sites went on to spread across North and South America, eventually reaching Tierra del Fuego about 10,700 years BP.

Yet no evidence. In fact, evidence seems to contradict the chronology. They're Usshering in their own defeat, pun intended.

Quote:

For example, the Dena'ina Athabaskans apparently expanded out of the interior to dominate a large segment of the southwestern Alaska coast, pushing out Yupik and Chugach Eskimo, in the centuries before European contact. Within a few centuries, however, their material culture, as seen in the archeological record, became difficult to indistinguish from their maritime Eskimo neighbors.

How conveeeeeeeenient. One culture conquers another culture, but ends up appropriating all elements of that culture. Isn't that the whole thesis of Afrocentrism?

Quote:

An early date of 33,000 years BP has been proposed for a cultural complex found at Monte Verde, Chile by Dillahay (1984, 1988) but it has not yet been generally accepted.

Details, please. Why has it "not yet been generally accepted?" If I don't have details, I can pretty much chalk it up to True Believer syndrome.

mibby529 · 08-23-2002, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Here's a discussion of Sinodonty, a suite of dental characteristics shared only between north Asians and Native Americans, and whose existence in Asia long predates its existence in North America.

And aborigines look entirely negroid, but I don't see anyone suggesting they're African. You'll have to do better than that. <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

mibby529 · 08-23-2002, 05:59 PM

Quote:

The Y chromosomes of 549 individuals from Siberia and the Americas were analyzed for 12 biallelic markers, which defined 15 haplogroups. The addition of four microsatellite markers increased the number of haplotypes to 111. The major Native American founding lineage, haplogroup M3, accounted for 66% of male Y chromosomes and was defined by the biallelic markers M89, M9, M45, and M3. The founder haplotype also harbored the microsatellite alleles DYS19 (10 repeats), DYS388 (11 repeats), DYS390 (11 repeats), and DYS391 (10 repeats). In Siberia, the M3 haplogroup was confined to the Chukotka peninsula, adjacent to Alaska.

And it could've been the other way around. Duhh...

BTW, "genetic evidence" ignores the fact that AT LEAST 98% OF AMERICAN INDIANS WERE LIQUIDATED FROM 1492 TO 1890! That would cut down genetic diversity, now wouldn't it? Unless you're calling Darwin a fraud.

lpetrich · 08-23-2002, 10:15 PM

Quote:

From Civilization.ca:
The Beringia concept, and its variations and derivations (Note 1) , are essential components of any archaeological discussion treating the origins of the first Aboriginal populations in the New World within a Pleistocene time frame.
Mibby:
In short allowing an assumption to pass because it's "essential" for archaeology, which BTW is mainly guesswork, like any history.

There is plenty of evidence for a high-and-dry Beringia during the most recent Ice Age that is totally independent of the question of migrations to the Americas; that article was noting that Beringia was a critical waypoint.

Quote:

Civilization.ca:
It must be noted, however, that relatively little pertinent data have come out of these investigations, mainly because of the difficulties inherent in archaeological research in these regions.
Mibby:
Do you REALLY expect me to believe in possibilism? ...

It's rather difficult to excavate archeological sites submerged under 50 meters of water, as I hope you'll appreciate, O Mibby.

Quote:

NPS site:
Thus, at the height of the Pleistocene, the Alaskan interior formed a relatively ice-free bowl ...
Mibby:
Tell me where that is on a modern map. If that's where I think it is, that area has frequent blizzards today. Imagine how it was in an Ice Age.

LESS snowy, since most of the snow would have fallen much further south, due to the Ice-Age conditions. Consider that much of Antarctica is essentially a desert, with essentially zero precipitation -- it has ice-free dry valleys.

Quote:

NPS site:
Another possible ice-free zone that could have formed a migration route was down the coastal zones into the Pacific northwest.
Mibby:
Now this is possible, but unproven. Science doesn't rely on blind faith.

Mibby, what would you consider good evidence here?

Quote:

Alaskan-geography details...
Mibby:
And you expect ppl to settle here in an Ice Age? I have never heard anything so stupid in all my life.

However, the Inuit had lived in exactly such places for the last few thousand years, at the least.

Quote:

NPS site:
For example, the Dena'ina Athabaskans expanding, but picking up Inuit material culture...
Mibby:
How conveeeeeeeenient. One culture conquers another culture, but ends up appropriating all elements of that culture. Isn't that the whole thesis of Afrocentrism?

Don't laugh, Mibby. Lots of conquerors have adopted at least some of the customs of the people they had conquered.

Mongols in China.
Early-Middle-Ages Germanic tribes in southwestern Europe
Romans in the eastern Mediterranean.
Indo-Aryan-speaking invaders in India (~1500-1200 BCE)
Hellenic-speaking invaders in Greece (~1800-1500 BCE)
...

And adopting Inuit material culture has a certain utility for surviving in Arctic conditions.

Quote:

Asian/Native-American distinctive tooth feature...
Mibby:
And aborigines look entirely negroid, but I don't see anyone suggesting they're African. You'll have to do better than that.

The Australian ones have traditionally been called "Australoid".

Quote:

(Genetic evidence of Siberia -> North America)
Mibby:
And it could've been the other way around. Duhh...

So they were able to cross the Bering Straits in the last Ice Age?

Quote:

Mibby:
BTW, "genetic evidence" ignores the fact that AT LEAST 98% OF AMERICAN INDIANS WERE LIQUIDATED FROM 1492 TO 1890! That would cut down genetic diversity, now wouldn't it? Unless you're calling Darwin a fraud.

Or more precisely, Gregor Mendel.

A population geneticist could easily work out how much genetic diversity would be lost in a bottleneck event like that; how common an allele would have to be in the pre-bottleneck population for it to likely be represented in the post-bottleneck population.

Imagine that 1% of the pre-conquest American Indian population had some allele in their genomes, and that it was evenly distributed across their population. That 1% proportion would be maintained during the conquest, and since the population was always much greater than 100, there were always several individuals having that allele, meaning that that allele could easily survive -- and survive in the same proportion.

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]

ps418 · 08-24-2002, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Mibby: (Genetic evidence of Siberia -> North America) Mibby: And it could've been the other way around. Duhh...

Quote:

Lpetrich: So they were able to cross the Bering Straits in the last Ice Age?

Now, now, Lpetrich. Its not polite to point out such obvious contradictions. <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

Anyway, it was already pointed out that the anatomic, archaeologic, genetic evidence indicate a Siberia -> North America polarity, but not vice-versa, and indicate that North America was the last continent to be inhabited by humans, not the first. Mibby counters this evidence by continuing to ignore it, repeating his mindless slogans about how no such evidence exists, yada yada.

Abacus · 08-24-2002, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ps418:
Anyway, it was already pointed out that the anatomic, archaeologic, genetic evidence indicate a Siberia -> North America polarity, but not vice-versa, and indicate that North America was the last continent to be inhabited by humans, not the first.

Sorry to pick a nit, but wouldn't South America have been the last continent inhabited?

Or actually, Antarctica.

ps418 · 08-24-2002, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Abacus:


Sorry to pick a nit, but wouldn't South America have been the last continent inhabited?

Or actually, Antarctica.

Oops. Yep, you're absolutely right. I should've said "One of the last."

[ August 24, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-22-2002, 06:53 PM	#112
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Can someone please tell me how this discussion relates to evolution or creation? I am sure it does, somewhere, but I can't see it immediately.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.